2008 Amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ...

personal jurisdiction over the obligor and obligee. The new order becomes the controlling order,
establishes the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal, and fixes the support obligation
and its nonmodifiable aspects, primarily duration of support, see Sections 604 and 611(c), infra.
The rationale for creating a new order to replace existing multiple orders is that there is no valid
reason to prefer the terms of any one of the multiple orders over another in the absence of a fact
situation described in subsections (b)(1) or (b)(2).
As originally promulgated, UIFSA did not come to grips with whether existing multiple
orders issued by different states might be entitled to full faith and credit without regard to the
determination of the controlling order under the act. The drafters took the position that state law,
however uniform, could not interfere with the ultimate interpretation of a constitutional directive.
Fortunately, this question has almost certainly been mooted by the 1996 amendment to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1738B, Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders. Congress incorporated the multiple
order recognition provisions of Section 207 of UIFSA into FFCCSOA virtually word for word in
the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996. Pub.
L. 104-193, Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2221.
It is not altogether clear whether the terms of UIFSA apply to a strictly intrastate case; that is,
a situation in which multiple child-support orders have been issued by multiple tribunals of a
single state and the parties and the child continue to reside in that state. This is not an uncommon
situation, often traceable to the intrastate applicability of RURESA. A literal reading of the
statutory language suggests the section applies. Further, FFCCSOA does not make a distinction
regarding the tribunals that issued multiple orders. If multiple orders have been issued by
different tribunals in the home state of the child, most likely the most recent will be recognized
as the controlling order, notwithstanding the fact that UIFSA Section 207 (b)(2)(B), and
FFCCSOA 42 U.S.C. § 1738B(f)(3), literally do not apply. At the very least, this section,
together with FFCCSOA, provide a template for resolving such conflicts.
Subsection (c) clarifies that any party or a support enforcement agency may request a tribunal
of the forum state to identify the controlling order. That party is directed to fully inform the
tribunal of all existing child-support orders.
Subsection (d) seeks to assure the tribunal is furnished with all the information needed to
make a proper determination of the controlling order, as well as the information needed to make
a calculation of the consolidated arrears. The party or support enforcement agency requesting the
determination of controlling order and determination of consolidated arrears is also required to
notify all other parties and entities who may have an interest in either of those determinations.
Those with such an interest most likely are support agencies and the obligee.
Subsection (e) provides that the determination of the controlling order under this section has
the effect of establishing the tribunal with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction; only the order of
that tribunal is entitled to prospective enforcement by a sister state.
Subsection (f) directs the forum tribunal to identify the details upon which it makes its
determination of the controlling order. In addition, the tribunal is also directed to state
87